7 Comments:

Greetings,

Out of blogs for few days and discovering recent "things" in this saga. I posted early in another forum a comment regarding O'Donnell interview made by Tony Bragalia I discovered today (in R.U., one my favorite forum - oups -).

Greetings *** and friends,Perfectly. Recently, I discovered an interview made by Mr Bragalia :http://bragalia.blogspot.com/2011/05/area-51-book-exposed-source-for-roswell.htmlIt is awesome to realize how much the interview is not standardized (as it is in criminology or in cognitive interview in order to avoid suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms), the questions oriented and how the interviewer presents (non consciously imho) a background which can favorize or will maximize the induction of "false memories", by suggestion/suggestibility mecanisms. The interviewer (T. Bragalia) is suggesting what he personnaly believes about Roswell event. It could conduce to the replies "wished" by the interviewer. In few times, M. O'Donnell will become a new Roswell (ETH version) protagonist and "second hand" witness? Who knows !I mean that [b]IF [/b]the interviews made by 90's researchers follow such a methodology not controling the suggestions/suggestibility induced by them, consciously or not, it is easy to have an idea how the bodies have been added in the Roswell myth... Or at least to well understand that the "methodology" and the interview are potentialy or hightly biaised (consciously or not, It is not "intentional" by the interviewer imho).My opinion only (?).

[...]

Seriously friends, without offense, in no way such kind of methodology with witnesses and interview made by UFO-proponents are standardized.If you give on-line to cognitive psychologists researchers (probably historians too), I mean professionals on how to interview potential wistnesses, you are thousand yards how it must process...

As I wrote earlier, AJB's interview with O'Donnell was a perfect example of the interviewer (Bragalia) 'leading' the witness towards his desired position, i.e. ETH. Bragalia insists O'Donnell was the victim of his superiors planting false evidence on him at Area 51 in the early 1950s. In doing so, Bragalia has merely replaced one dotty scenario (the Russian/Nazi connection) with another (the idea that the witness, O'Donnell, was duped by his bosses into believing Roswell was a Russian/Nazi device, while they knew it was ETH).

With Roswell, you can trisect an angle, square the circle and prove pi = 3 if you want to.

As far as criminology., I had a former brother in law who was a homicide detective until he burned out on unraveling the sordid details of murder. Often in interrogation sessions they would push the suspect as if "they knew" the subject was guilty by saying so to the suspect, or plant a false theory to test the suspect's reactions. However all this was done face to face, not by telephone. Anything that was said to be affirmed or questioned, was, of course. vetted by other interviews. Many times, drugs that were seized were withheld from being turned in, in order to bribe addicts or at times, other criminal activities were ignored that were undertaken by informants, so a "deal" for information could be brokered. Not everyone is prone to inference or suggestibility, depending on the context. This is a stereotype on the opposite side of the fence. Again, nothing came from the interview, except perhaps a foot in the door. The issue is a subject infolded into the main topic, which, in of itself is a form of deception, not the main menu. The "Rashomon Effect" can be manipulated if there is a straw dog involved, the more straw dogs the better. The effectiveness of the original feint is demonstrative,if it occurred as a example of the gamesmanship of the same process of inference or suggestion as a psychological operation. Call this compounded effects, a causal "language war" lacking a corpse, which probably never existed.The snake eats it's tale, not "tail". The degree of suggestion involved can be measured by the interest expressed in following a probable false flag. In the end, no one can disprove Roswell never happened, due to the preponderance of straw dogs, many of which have been shown to be exactly this. This story is another that was volunteered to the heap for cash. Nearly all of it as instructive narratives that have no rational point,belong in the same trash pile.

2.) Jacobson's shtick is clearly a gimmick for her to get invited to the talk shows and sell books. She managed appearances on the morning shows, Colbert and others. Ignore the mutants, and the rest of the book is pretty good.

3.) agree with Gilles for once. Tony B's hurt himself with his response to this book. At this point, any investigation on the Roswell incident that depends on witnesses is clearly flawed beyond redemption. His "follow the money" line of investigation (eg. nitinol, etc...) is, imho, more likely to yield a "smoking gun".

Bruce says "lacking a corpse, which probably never existed". How true in the Roswell case.

There were no genuine documents, in 1971, seen by John, Nick Redfern's informant. Instead, John says, they were probably fakes, concocted by others, to mislead him. Likewise O'Donnell, (Jacobsen's informant) was shown wreckage and corpses which looked ET but which were actually 13-year old earthly children bred for the purpose. Now we hear this was all a plot to fool O'Donnell. In other words his 'corpses' were actual ETs!

The difference is that O'Donnell saw his evidence in 1951, whereas Nick's informant saw his docs in 1971. So one may, or may not, corroborate the other. Take your pick!

So where is the real 'corpse'? Why are we constantly fed these tales that lead nowhere, with promises of 'more to come' (by, e.g. Tony Bragalia).

Perhaps in this case the equation is right. Zero plus zero equals zero.

Bruce is right: there is no 'corpse', whether a real physical corpse or a documentary one. And there never will be.

You said: "There were no genuine documents, in 1971, seen by John, Nick Redfern's informant. Instead, John says, they were probably fakes, concocted by others, to mislead him."

No. As I mentioned in the comment thread at my Darkness in the Desert blog, John's view was that the files were shown to him as a loyalty-test - to see if he went running to the press, confided in family, friends, etc, which he did not.

A test of loyalty in which no real secrets ever face being compomised (because the data are fabricated) is different to an attempt to mislead.

But, I do find it intriguing that John openly told me (in July 2006, and published by me in December 2010) that there were rumours afoot at Area 51 in 1971 that back in 1947 someone had addressed the possibility of Roswell being a Russian hoax with biologically altered people.

That this story (published by me in 2010) is practically identical to what Jacobsen was told, leads me to believe that her source may have seen files that could have been related to those seen by John, but that Jacobsen's source bought the story, and John concluded it was a loyalty-testing fabrication.